The JVC GZ-X900 came to us with an exciting premise—a uniquely designed, Full HD camcorder that can double as a 9-megapixel still camera. While most camcorders are capable of taking still photos, few boast the massive amount of still features and 9-megapixel resolution offered on the GZ-X900. The camcorder titillated us with a strong bright light performance, but in the end we were left unimpressed by its vastly inferior low light capabilities. The GZ-X900 records HD video and photos to SD/SDHC memory cards and currently retails for around $1000.

The drawbacks of the GZ-X900 clearly outweigh its positive assets. The camcorder is loaded with a puny 5x optical zoom, which is far smaller than what you'd find on an average HD camcorder (usually between 10x - 15x).  It also has a unique design that forgoes the traditional right-side hand strap found on most consumer camcorders. We didn't mind how the GZ-X900 handled, however, and the camcorder actually felt good in the palm. Still, the camcorder's smooth surface and rectangular design do little to provide a decent grip, and the lack of a hand strap means it can be dropped far too easily.

The GZ-X900 is equipped with JVC's Laser Touch navigation system, which is included on all JVC camcorders this year. The Laser Touch definitely takes some getting used to and it probably won't satisfy users who are accustomed to lens rings or adjustment dials. We did find the GZ-X900's Laser Touch system to be slightly more responsive than previous JVC models, but it was still downright awful for making precise manual adjustments. On the bright side, the Laser Touch is good for scrolling through long lists of menu options—of which the GZ-X900 has plenty.

As for the camcorder's highly-touted still capabilities? They aren't as good as we hoped. Yes, the GZ-X900 can take 9-megapixel photos, and it hosts a plethora of still features and controls, but the camcorder couldn't live up to its hype when we ran it through our still image testing. Of particular note were high noise levels and a much lower still sharpness score than we expected to see. Numerous other camcorders, like the Sanyo VPC-CG10, Canon HF S100, and Samsung HMX-R10 captured significantly sharper still images.

The GZ-X900 has a few high-speed recording options that can be used to capture ultra-slow-motion video. The three modes (120fps, 300fps, and 600fps) are fun to play around with, but the quality of the recorded video is extremely poor. Also, the high-speed options only allow you to capture a few seconds of footage, which severely limits their usefulness.

Performance (read in-depth lab performance at CamcorderInfo.com)
The JVC GZ-X900 was a stellar performer in all of our bright light testing. It captured colors accurately, rendered motion exceptionally well, and measured the highest video sharpness we've ever seen. This incredible performance dropped off quickly once we dimmed the lights for our low light testing, however. In low light, the GZ-X900 produced tons of noise, murky colors with a greenish hue, and required a lot of light to capture a usable image. If you want to record a low light image where you can actually see what is going on, you're basically resigned to using the GZ-X900's auto slow shutter. This allows the camcorder's shutter to drop to a slower speed to boost low light performance—while at the same time producing choppy motion that can look awkward and unnatural.

The GZ-X900 is one of two camcorders from JVC to offer optical image stabilization in 2009. Unfortunately, we found the system didn't work very well in reducing shake. It may have something to do with the unique shape and lightweight design of the GZ-X900, however, because JVC's newest model, the GZ-HM400, did far better in our stabilization test.

Comparisons (read in-depth comparisons at CamcorderInfo.com)
Basically, the GZ-X900 isn't worth its $1000 price tag and there are numerous models that offer a better value. If you're looking for a camcorder with a unique design and good still image capabilities the Sanyo VPC-HD2000 and Samsung HMX-R10 are both better choices. The Sanyo did particularly well in our low light testing, especially compared to the dismal performance by the GZ-X900. Both the Samsung R10 and Sanyo HD2000 do have their quirks, however, and they are definitely not traditional camcorders.

JVC's mid-range models are compact, simple, and reasonably priced for what you get. We suggest checking out the JVC GZ-HD300 or GZ-HM200 for a cheaper alternative to the GZ-X900. They don't have the impressive still capabilities of the X900, but they cost so much less that you could go out and buy a dedicated still camera with your savings.

If you're going to spring for a high-end HD camcorder, we suggest the Panasonic HDC-TM300 or HDC-HS300 over the GZ-X900. The Panasonic models have a superior interface, more controls, and, most importantly, work far better in low light. The only downside is that they are a bit more expensive than the GZ-X900.

If you're planning to film in anything other than well-lit, bright light situations, we urge you to stay away from the JVC GZ-X900. It's bright light performance may be spectacular, but it is far from desirable under low light or even moderately dim lighting conditions. Hopefully next year JVC can improve on the GZ-X900 and make a more versatile camcorder that still works splendidly even in less than ideal lighting conditions.